As Heard on The Stephanie Miller Show

Saturday, December 24, 2005

So Santa doesn't exist. It's really Mom and Dad and the Visa Card. Its amazing what happens when our carefully construed versions of the truth blow up in our faces. Like how we feel about sex. And who should experience it. And how we talk about it. And how we do it. And please don't talk about things like weapons of mass destruction. You see all that we are experiencing is what happens when truth meets the lies we have constructed. The first thing is denial runs rampant. And that's what is happening guys, from sex and relationships to culture to politics to how we view ourswelves. 2006 promises to inject a giant dose of sodium penathol into our system.

That's why the censors are stepping up thier efforts. And the neo-cons. And the UberXians. And the Evil Ones in government. The truth about everything is about to come out and it will do oneof two things...destroy us or make us stronger.

And as usual, the strong will be the few. The very few. It'll be interesting to watch if we survive.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

This is what I have had to deal with all day....outside a very nasty cold...

There can be no doubt that the change in rules at tribe.net is justthe latestresponse to 2257. We all received a letter today in our tribe.netmail with thefollowing message: "...We’re implementing Community Flagging.To ensure that allposts are respectful, and to respond to concerns from ourusers about some ofthe content on the site being offensive, we’re going toallow members to flagcontent (photos and listings) for removal. In ourjudgment, at least some ofyour photos are likely to be flagged for removalby other tribe.net members.""What to do now: we suggest you remove allphotos that you think are likely tobe considered in violation of the newTOU. Then remove the mature mark (before12/20) on your profile. Doing thisnow will save you a lot of work down theroad."

Keep in mind - tribe.net members can flag as "offensive" any photo, eventlisting or discussion thread.

Does this seem ridiculous? Perhaps. But tribe.net is only responding to theU.S. Government crackdown on ANY website that has sexually explicit content:whether photos or words.

Mr. Gonzales and his office is going gangbusters after websites thatcontain "bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochisticbehavior." Additionally, Federal sentencing guidelines state that anyobscenity-related punishment should be "enhanced for sadomasochistic material."There can be NO MORE denial. The far right in America had to pick a new target,and WE, my kinky, bdsm and leather friends, are it. Friends, this governmentcrackdown was originally about child pornography. But they’ve found a way to useit against consenting adults. They are arresting and prosecuting owners ofwebsites whose content includes sado-masochistic pictures AND websites with BDSMcontent in WORD only! In response, several website owners have decided to closedown.

Our own beloved Midori has removed her website, BeautyBound.com, citingfear of obscenity prosecution. The owner of three SM websites, known as GrandPaDeSade, removed his websites from the Internet. SuicideGirls.com announced theyare self-censoring their materials over concerns about a possible obscenitycrackdown. The popular insex.com has left America, is being run in anothercountry, and has taken down all prior content An extension was made last monthweek, delaying enforcement of 2257 that some gay male cruising websites say arethreatening the use of nude photos, a staple of their popularity.

And now, with tribe.net changing what content they will allow, 2257 hasreached our community's informational and educational resource sites attribe.net. Throughout all this, the NCSF has remained hard at work on ourbehalf, working on obscenity cases that are before the United States DistrictCourts, Appeal Courts and the even the US Supreme Court (go to www.ncsfreedom.org/news/2005/ for the most recent cases).

This fight takes MONEY and the time to take action is NOW. Please, i urgeeach and every one of us who is into kink, bdsm, fetishes, leather and otheralternative sexual lifestyles, to take the time to join the NCSF, either asindividuals or groups. Details can be found on the NCSF's website at http://www.ncsfreedom.org/ It's timeto stand up and be counted. Right now they're only coming after ourwebsites.

What's next? The closure of our our bdsm and leather yahoo groups?Our dungeon spaces? Our leather bars? The swing clubs? Please, don't buy intothe saying "that would never happen in America." If we don’t stand up now, wewill be putting the red carpet out for history to repeat itself. And pleaselet’s not fool ourselves. Our toes are already on that carpet. First it wasadult porn producers. Then online erotica sites. Then Pro-Domme sites. Then gaydating sites. Now our online communities. What’s next? Please, join the NCSFnow.

More about the NCSF: The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is anational organization committed to creating a political, legal, and socialenvironment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adultswho practice forms of alternative sexual __expression.NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in theSM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often facediscrimination because of their sexual __expression.National Coalition for Sexual Freedom822 Guilford Avenue,Box 127Baltimore, MD 21202-3707410-539-4824 http://www.ncsfreedom.org/

For those who thought that all this 2257 nonsense would not effect you, here's proof that you are mistaken. The goal of the NeoConNeoXian Fascists in power in the government and media is, basically, a "Disneyizing" of the Nation...which is interesting considering what the Real Walt Disney Co. is putting out, making it a target.I beleive they want we who feel sex is positive, sex in wonderful, sex is vital, and sex is nothing to be ashamed of to be gone. They want this website, and most of all this forum to be gone. The attacks this site has endured, both verbally and via cyber, is testament to that. We have to rededicate ourselves to ridding this country of these scourges once and for all. We mus vote them out. We must shine light on them. We must uncover thier hypocrisy wherever it lies. And we must start now. It is, I believe, a matter of life and death. And I am not talking figuratively.

[Editor's note: Welcome to the first of a new Tyee series called 'Best of the Campus Press.' Starting today, we'll be running regular highlights from BC's college and university newspapers.]Capilano College is currently home to the philosopher and the accused. In child pornography, that is.As news of Michael Berry's possession of child pornography charges circulated Capilano College last month, the administration struggled to limit the damage of association with the crime and the accused criminal. The Film Studies instructor taught minors in the Continuing Education program since 1981 and was well known in West Vancouver where he lived and owned a popular ice cream shop.It's part of an ongoing effort by the RCMP to investigate educators, and the RCMP warns there are more charges forthcoming. These circumstances bring to mind the cases of former residential school operator Paul Leroux and high school Principal William Bennest. And these classic and contemporary examples of pedophiliac lifestyles involving education evoke anger and disgust among most people.It is this emotional reaction to the crime that two Capilano College philosophy instructors believe led to Canada's child pornography legislation and account for its flaws. In their 2001 book On Kiddie Porn, Stan Persky and John Dixon argue that Canadian child pornography law violates free speech rights. The book looks at child pornography law by following the Robin Sharpe case, which they were involved in as interveners from the BC Civil Liberties Association. Dixon was also a special advisor to the Federal Ministry of Justice at the time that Canadian child pornography laws were devised. The recent arrest of Michael Berry brings the child pornography debate between civil libertarians and fundamentalists back to the surface.'Legal and moral murkiness'"Ninety-nine percent of all Canadians agree that child pornography is a terrible thing and we ought to do everything we can to prevent it," Stan Persky, told the Cap Courier. Although he is among the 99 percent of people opposed to kiddie porn, he goes on to point out the legal and moral murkiness of the legislation concerning the crime.According to Persky, the law is plagued with a lack of clarity because the people concerned with it are involved in the legislative process for many different reasons. Because most Canadians choose not to focus on the topic, politicians, child porn users, victim lobby groups and law enforcement are behind the legal and moral discussion. Each of these groups has a specific interest in the laws and this has resulted in ambiguous legislation.Canadian child pornography laws were tacked on to the obscenity section of the criminal code by the Mulroney government in 1993. The political climate during this period says a lot about the context of the creation of the law. The Conservative government was unpopular among Canadians and there was contention within the party. There was talk of the fundamentalist factions splitting off from the government. (Which happened later with the creation of the Reform Party and, eventually, the Canadian Alliance.)'Feel good law'Critics have said that the feel-good law that protects children was created merely to appease fundamentalists and voters. Because there is no dollar value attached to tightening up laws, it was a cheap way to generate positive buzz. There was no rise in the availability of child pornography at the time. The existing obscenity law already covered child pornography. It seems that there was no need to introduce the law. Nonetheless, it was rushed through parliament with only three hours of debate.

What resulted was the creation of very vague language that bans much more than civil libertarians believe is necessary. According to the current criminal code, child pornography is defined as "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means…that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or…the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years, or…any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act."

In other words, anything (whether it be photographs of real children, drawings, or written fictional fantasies) that depicts or encourages a person under 18 in some sexual activity is child pornography. This definition is the first point on which fundamentalist and civil libertarian opinion differs.

hild quibblesThere are two elements of this legal definition that Persky has problems with: the meaning of "child," and what the "representation" has to be to be illegal."The real question comes," he began in an interview with the Cap Courier, "with the question: what is it exactly that we are trying to stop? Where do we want to focus our energies?...The things that we are most concerned about are actual children who are used to make pornography. When we say 'actual children' we mean that they are real people -- that they're not just an artist's drawing or some writer that's imagining something -- and that they really should be children...The focus is on people who we really wouldn't call children. They're young people. 14 to 17-year-olds legally can have sex with people who are over 18."The legal age of consent is 14 in Canada. There is law that protects 15 to 17-year-olds in situations where those over 18 that are in a position of authority. Persky points out that by including people between 14 and 18, it becomes illegal to possess depicted activities that are, in fact, legal.For example, Persky illustrates a situation in which a legal act becomes illegal: "Two people between the ages of 14 and 18 can have sex with each other and there is no law against that. But if they make a picture of it, it can become child pornography and that doesn't make sense."Documenting legal acts is illegal?Persky argues that the laws should be an extension of illegal acts. Of course, documenting criminal activity should be illegal. However, he doesn't see the harm in documenting perfectly legal sexual activity. "People like me think that is a violation of freedom of imagination. The reason that that shouldn't be prohibited is because there's no direct harm."Secondly, Persky doesn't believe that writings or illustrations should be considered child pornography. He thinks that the law should exist to prevent harm to children. However, if no harm has been done, it should not be illegal. That is why the categorization of what the actual representation can be troubles civil libertarians like Persky. As the law stands, illustrated children and fictional writing are included as child pornography. Since no child has been harmed in the creation of the material, Persky believes that it should be legal. In fact, he argues that the existence of a law banning such material violates freedom of speech and thought.An additional element of the 1993 law was that merely possessing child pornography became a crime. This was the first time in Canadian law that it became illegal to possess "expression materials."In his article "Kiddie Porn and The Public Good," Persky says that the unique law was to show that the problem of child pornography is so serious that it comes before constitutional rights regarding freedom of thought, speech and expression. He goes on to show what he considers to be the law's flaws by describing a case in which a diary entry that was not intended for publication or distribution could be considered illegal. He writes, "Even though he may not have shown it to anyone else [it] could be a crime under the child pornography law. Wasn't the possession offence trenching dangerously close on freedom of thought?"Critics have also argued that the law steps into the bounds of free speech rights by banning the advocacy of sexual activity with persons under the age of 18. The constitutional guarantee of free speech does not ban advocating any crime. However, the 1993 law made it illegal to advocate sex with people under 18. Was this section of the law created in order to protect children? According to Persky, it was beginning to sound like fundamentalists were trying to control youth sex under the mask of protecting children.

Sharpe testing

notorious pornographer, Robin Sharpe, provided a test case with which to try out the new legislation. A number of charges were laid against him in 1995, including the possession and authoring of pornographic fiction involving very young boys.

In Persky's view, Sharpe was the perfect candidate for testing the laws because he was a respected literary writer. If anyone would be able to defend his work on the grounds of artistic merit, it was surely Sharpe. In his self-defended case, he challenged the advocacy and possession sections of the law, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights. The B.C. lower courts agreed with Sharpe and it wasn't until the Supreme Court ruling that the law was upheld.

Although the court ordered Sharpe tried, Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin created a few exceptions to the 1993 law. She made it easier to fulfill requirements to use the artistic merit legal defense and deemed that "self-created expressive material" and "personal recordings of lawful sexual activities" were not criminal. She clearly stated that her reasons for interpreting the law in this manner were to honour freedom of expression and thought.

Artistic merit vs public good

However, Persky doesn't think that McLaughlin's changes address the problems. He writes that, "Anomalies remained. Written advocacy of sex with children was still considered child pornography, people under 18 were still regarded as children, and a variety of representations involving neither actual children nor actual sex could fall afoul of the law."

Although Sharpe was convicted on one charge of possessing a sexual photograph of a child, he was acquitted of the charges surrounding his writing under the artistic merit defense. "The people who were opposed to Sharpe were furious that he should be allowed to write what he wanted to," Persky reflects on the case. "That's their view -- that writing should be restricted if it's dirty or they don't like it or it violates some kind of moral idea of their own. But the Canadian Constitution says that you can write anything you damn well please."

After the Robin Sharpe case, fundamentalists called upon the government to plug the loopholes in the existing law that allowed for the artistic merit defense. In 2005, the law was amended to do away with the artistic merit defense by introducing a "public good" defense. Instead of allowing alleged pornographers the defense of art, their work must serve some "public good" in order to be exempt from prosecution. Exactly what "public good" is, however, is unclear.

Banning 'Romeo and Juliet'?(remember "porky's II?")

Persky was particularly concerned with the implications of discarding the artistic merit defense. In his article "Kiddie Porn and the Public Good," he writes: "We might find ourselves scratching our heads over sundry works. Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, Margeurite Duras' The Lover, Bernhard Schlink's The Reader, and a host of films from Agnieszka Holland's Total Eclipse to Franco Zeffirelli's version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet all contain depictions of persons under 18 engaged in sex with adults (excepting only the Bard's star-crossed teen lovers)."Since these works of possible child pornography are no longer protected by an artistic merit defence, do they really all serve 'the public good?' Gee, I'm not so sure about Humbert Humbert's adventures with Lolita...What if I happen to be in possession of Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet? In the famous ''tis the nightingale/ no, 'tis the lark' bedroom scene, Zeffirelli's camera lingers long on the naked 'anal region of a person' who is or is depicted as being under 18, namely, Romeo, played by Leonard Whiting.

"Whether that anal region is displayed for 'a sexual purpose' or to 'serve the public good,' or even the claim of some hapless artist that it's there because it's beautiful, can be left to the courts for resolution. I suppose the common-sense of the courts will probably rescue most of the above, notwithstanding the lust of fundamentalists to clean up dirty art. But Cauchon's amendments simply make a bad, often illogical, law that much worse."

Art loopholes

Not only did the changes to the law cover Sharpe's art loophole, but it also attempted to address the fact that it was argued that Sharpe didn't actually advocate for illegal sex, he only described it. The new law also banned any description of illegal acts. Persky expresses his thoughts about this particular point by writing that "Once again, as in the days when "decency" and "morality" rather than actual harm determined judgments of obscenity, written descriptions of imaginary acts by imaginary persons could fall under the child pornography law."

Whether child pornography laws will be amended in the future remains to be seen. However, it is clear that, again, this issue will be in the limelight as new charges are laid in B.C. In addition to Michael Berry's charges, another schoolteacher was charged recently in Surrey. The RCMP warns that this is not the end of child pornography charges against people involved in education.Although Persky is concerned with harm being done to children, he warns that it is important to tread carefully when dealing with issues that have the potential to violate our rights to free speech. "You should be allowed to write anything you want or else you don't have a democracy," he concludes. "You should be allowed to say anything you want. That's why we have freedom of speech. It's at the heart of democratic theory."

Erin Millar has been an editor and writer for the Capilano Courier at Capilano College for three years. She also serves as the Western Regional Director of Canadian University Press.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

I hope this does not turn into a ramble, and I am wondering if this is the proper forum, but since a lot of it deal with sex, I'll start it here.

As you know, I occasionally have a party or two. I do ask for donations to help with the room rate. And considering what I am asking, I am being pretty reasonable. But lately, its been like pulling teeth. I am about 48 hours close to cancelling a party because of real low interest.

I am not the only one. Other friends who old parties are experiencing the same thing.I sense this is connected to a general malaise in the country. People, as a whole, seem internally dead for some reason. ATtendance at movies, sporting events, heck even churchs are down. TV ratings are plummetting. No one is buying music, and downloading's down so you can't blame that.Dovetailing to sex, I am wondering if we have become walking corpses.

I wonder whatever happned to the wonder and joy we had before 2000. It can't be all W's fault. It just seems that we, as a people have gone into hibernation.Heck, even here, I have found it hard to start a conversation sometimes.

What HAS happened to us? Have our juices run dry? Have we all become spectators looking for an event to happen?

Friday, October 28, 2005

This is just a short post to recommending something I was hoping CBS would put out in tandem with the new movie "good night and good luck."

Edward R Murrow was probably the most professional, most polished, most principled electronic journalist in the history of television or radio. CBS News has released the Edward R Murrow Collection, a 4-disc set featuring Murrow's beat reporting duties, the best of "See It Now," the groundbreaking documentary "Harvest of Shame," which is still...Unfortunately...Very relevant, and...Of course...The main event....Murrow v McCarthy.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

“Sexually dangerous,” that’s what a Woodford County teenager is being labeled by the State of Illinois. She's also the first female in the state with that designation. 17-year old Tammy Wheeler of Eureka has been designated “sexually dangerous” after being charged with fondling two young boys earlier this year. According to Woodford County Court documents Wheeler admitted to fondling other children before that incident. The documents say she suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder from physical and sexual abuse in her childhood, and has uncontrollable sexual urges. State's Attorney Mike Stroh says during interviews Wheeler said she would continue to molest children. “The fact is that she indicated to the doctor, and I believe the police as well, that she would commit this offense if she was given the opportunity to do that. She indicated that she had an uncontrollable urge, and that was something that caused us great concern,” said Woodford County State’s Attorney Mike Stroh. Stroh also says the “sexually dangerous” designation assures that Wheeler will get the counseling she needs, and will not be released from the Department of Corrections anytime soon.Wheeler is being held at the Dwight Correctional Center. It is not yet known which state facility she will be sent to for long-term treatment.My comment...on the one hand it is goo that Ms Wheeler will be getting that treatment. But I am very disturbed about EXACTLY what "sexually dangerous" is or could mean?I am assuming that this is a designation for people who "can't help themselves". But I wonder if some Xian activist would want to include, say BDSM to that. Or porn? or bisexuality or homosexuality? Or anything else that could be outside the norm?Oh the tangled web we weavenwhen first we practice to control others sexuality...polybi

Sunday, September 04, 2005

(If this was a single person, and this happened, the people responsible for this would be charged with capital murder...or at charfed with being an accessory. This was the deliberate murder of 10,000 people and the atteomted murder of another 100,000.

Who do we charge? The President? The Adminsitration? The Governor? The Mayor?

Us??-polybi)

Louisiana official haunted by drowned woman

A New Orleans official was overcome by emotion on national television on Sunday when describing how a woman was abandoned and eventually drowned after repeated promises she would be rescued.

"The guy who runs this building I'm in, the emergency management, who's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said are you coming, son, is somebody coming," Aaron Broussard, president of Jefferson Parish, said as he burst into heavy sobbing on NBC's Meet the Press program.

"And he said 'yeah mama, somebody's coming to get ya, somebody's coming to get ya on Tuesday, somebody's coming to get ya on Wednesday, somebody's coming to get ya on Thursday, somebody's coming to get you on Friday.'

"And she drowned Friday night, she drowned Friday night. Nobody's coming to get us.""Nobody's coming to get us, nobody's coming to get us," Broussard said through tears.Broussard, president of the parish just south of New Orleans, did not give the woman's name.The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina "will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history," he said.

Local and federal officials said they expected to find thousands of corpses still floating in flood waters or locked inside homes and buildings destroyed by the devastating storm that struck the U.S. Gulf Coast last Monday.

Broussard said the government must acknowledge the part it played in senseless deaths."It's not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans," he said. "Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area, and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now."

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Remember when the only things that a teacher wanted from a student was and apple and the only thing a student wanted from a teacher was and "A"?

..........

Former Teacher Pleads Guilty To Sex With StudentCardozo Avoids Jail Under Plea AgreementPOSTED: 9:26 am MDT July 26, 2005COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- A former high school teacher in Colorado Springs faces sentencing next month after reaching a plea agreement on child sex charges.

Gwen Ann Cardozo taught English at Wasson High School.Gwen Ann Cardozo, 33, pleaded guilty on Monday to sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, admitting she had a sexual relationship with a male student who was 17 years old at the time.Prosecutors dropped another charge in exchange for her plea.The deal will require Cardozo -- a mother of four -- to undergo sex offender treatment and register as a sex offender. She may also have to remain under supervision for the rest of her life.Cardozo agreed to deferred sentence of four years. That will allow her to avoid prison if she doesn't violate the terms of her probation. .Cardozo taught English at Wasson High School for 10 years before resigning in March.According to a police affidavit, a student teacher who was grading work for Cardozo last February found love letters written to Cardozo among a student’s homework assignments.The letters referred to “doing it today” and ended in “I love you,” the affidavit stated. The school notified police the next day.Cardozo originally denied having a relationship with the boy until threatened with a lie detector test. She then admitted having sex with the student three times a week for two months, according to police.The relationship began when he was a senior, and lasted for at least two months, according to the boy.

Former middle school teacher Debra Lafave, 24, left, stands with her attorney John Fitzgibbons, right, as he talks with reporters after a hearing before Circuit Court Judge Wayne Timmerman Monday, July 18, 2005 at the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Tampa, Fla. Lafave, whose sexual liaisons with a 14-year-old student made tabloid headlines, broke off plea negotiations with prosecutors and will claim insanity at a December trial, her attorney said Monday.(AP Photo/Steve Nesius)TAMPA, Fla. -- A teacher will claim she was insane due to emotional stress and did not know right from wrong when she had sex numerous times with a 14-year-old student, her attorney said Monday."What teacher in her right mind would do something like this?" attorney John Fitzgibbons said after a brief hearing for his client, Debra Lafave, a middle-school reading teacher.The judge agreed to appoint two mental health professionals to evaluate Lafave, 24. Prosecutors have said a state psychologist already determined Lafave was not insane, while one hired by the defense concluded that she was mentally ill.Lafave's trial was set for Dec. 5 on four felony counts of lewd and lascivious battery and one count of lewd and lascivious exhibition. Each carries a maximum 15-year prison term.Fitzgibbons said plea bargaining broke down because prosecutors wanted Lafave to serve too much prison time, though he did not give details."To place an attractive young woman in that kind of hell hole is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions," said Fitzgibbons. "I'm not sure she would survive."A state attorney's office spokeswoman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.The boy told investigators he and the teacher had sex in a classroom, her house and once in a vehicle while his 15-year-old cousin drove. He said Lafave told him her marriage was in trouble and that she was aroused by the fact that having sex with him was not allowed.and ANOTHER!Teacher gets 90 days in jail, probation in sex abuse caseBy Brett Nauman bnauman@pantagraph.com

//-->BLOOMINGTON -- A former elementary school teacher was sentenced Monday to 36 months of probation and 90 days in jail for having consensual sex with a 16-year-old girl.David A. Fox, 26, of Normal, also must complete a sex offender evaluation program. He was accused of having sex with a high school student between August and November 2004.Fox, who taught at Ridgeview Elementary School in Colfax and coached the junior high and high school baseball teams at Ridgeview, pleaded guilty May 26 to charges of felony criminal sexual abuse.During his sentencing hearing, McLean County Assistant State's Attorney Stephanie Wong argued Fox should have to spend four years in prison. She said inappropriate behavior occurred between Fox and high school girls during his tenure at Ridgeview.He allowed one girl to give him a back massage, invited others to his apartment and looked at pornography on the Internet with another, Wong said.Don Wilcox, the Bloomington attorney who represented Fox, said chances are slim that his client would offend again. Fox never has been convicted of a crime other than traffic violations.While emphasizing Fox crossed the line of trust that exists between teachers and students, Judge Ronald Dozier agreed the former teacher should not have to spend time in prison.That Fox never will be allowed to teach again simply because he couldn't "control his emotions" likely will be punishment enough, Dozier said."You've dug yourself a hole in life here," Dozier said to Fox. "But you're young and you can dig your way out. You'll be a stronger and better person for it."http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/072605/new_20050726026.shtmlOh..one more..Teacher on underage sex tryst brings baby, is arrested#message A.P2WRail:active { BY DENISA R. SUPERVILLE and ROCCO PARASCANDOLASTAFF WRITERSJuly 22, 2005A city school teacher was arrested after he took his toddler with him on a would-be tryst in Greenwich Village with what he thought was a 13-year-old girl, police said Thursday.The Wednesday night arrest of Alan Schaefer, 43, was most unusual, police said, because most men who meet underage girls try to be as discreet as possible.But Schaefer showed up with his 14-month-old son, even though he and the girl -- a young-looking vice detective dressed as a teenager -- he met on the Internet had already agreed they would have sex at her place, police said.Holding his son in one arm, Schaeffer took the undercover officer's hand with his other hand and strolled down the street toward her "apartment," police said.Instead, back-up police moved in and Schaefer was arrested. His son was placed with family.Schaefer was charged with attempted sexual abuse, the attempted dissemination of indecent materials, endangering the welfare of a child, his son, and attempted endangering the welfare of a child, the officer, whom he believed to be underage.Schaefer joined the school system in 1983 as a substitute and became a full-time teacher a year later. He has taught music at Louis Pasteur Middle School 67 in Little Neck since 1986. He is not teaching summer school, according to the Department of Education.When school starts in September, Schaefer, who has tenure, will be assigned to an administrative post, away from children, pending the outcome of the investigation, the department said.Police said Schaefer and the detective met in an America Online chat room on July 7, then continued their Internet relationship for nearly two weeks, during which time he revealed his sexual desires.They agreed to have sex in the Village Wednesday night after meeting on the street, the first time they communicated in person, police said.As news of the arrest made its way to the Kew Gardens apartment complex where Schaefer lives, his neighbors reacted with disgust.Marie Lynch, 52, said she last saw Schaefer leaving his apartment -- his baby in a stroller -- at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, 75 minutes before his arrest."He's a school teacher -- he handles children," Lynch said. "If it's true, it's a disturbing trend. It's very disturbing."Another neighbor said the allegation is "sickening" and a third, herself a schoolteacher, was furious."It's really disgusting," said the woman, who did not want her name printed. "You're really looked up to as a role model and you're not supposed to take advantage of children."You're really supposed to be protecting them."Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-sex0722,0,6910278,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

I could go on....put in "teacher sex" in Google and you get over 1600 returns. 1600!I don't have the space here....but does anyone see a pattern here? We have some truths we need to deal with. Nowpolybi

Friday, July 22, 2005

What have I done with me?Here I sit, 7 months over 40 yrs old, and I wonder, where did I lose 'me' along the way?I 'thought' I was, if not happy, at least passably content, but..I've recently discovered I'm not..I've been more..resigned..than anything else.I've been loved, have loved, and still have more love to give, but seems very few today want it, cause I have lived half my life already.A few years ago, I discovered Swinging as an alternative lifestyle choice..and so, once again, I felt desirable. A very ..heady.. feeling.. especially for a mature woman with kids and being fat. I let it go to my head..bad choice.Now.. seems time for a re-evaluation of life, love, and what to do with my time left here.

Now I am beginning to wonder about everthing and everybody myself. It seems the Kool-Aid is being passed around freely and people are drinking at thr trough.Right now, I have sat and looke at everything that I have gone through in the last 8 years. Remember the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers? That final part where Kevin MCarthy is running in the night wondering if he was the only one that the aliens have not grabbed? I have been feeling like Kevin a lot lately.

Walking corpses are mulitplying on the streets at an alarming rate. I see it in our choices in how we live, whate we experience...I mean, c'mon....the number one show in America last week was Dancing with the F'n Stars!!!! What has happmed to you people?

You don't go to movies, you don't read newspapers, you don't experince any life, most of you sit in front of an idiot box and let your mind rot. And our choices! It seems the message is very straightforward...conform or else. Take a look at a lot of the makeover-reality show (worse of the lot, Brat Camp...lets remove what ever spirit and passion these kids have and turn them into little Stepford Teens!

And now I am speaking directly to those people in The Lifestyle. Have we lost our spunk? Have we lost our passion? I am beginning to wonder if those who have proclaimes themselves to be outside the "norms" of sexuality have called it a day, or have been possessed by the NeoCon Body Snatchers.

We've seem to have lost our want for this. Maybe its the fact that we will be stuck with Alfred E Newman as President for another three years, or that Roe seems destined to be overturned, or that you are dealing with the evils of 2257, or maybe you are seeing countries as close as Canada showing enlightenment in terms of marriage, while many still cling to a 1950's that really never exsisted.

Our community...our family...has entered a mailaise that seems to have crippled our passions. We stay home, we don;t go to parties, we do not explore our sexualities and try to step out of our barriers as we once did. We seem to have elected to stay in our little boxes and not try to rock the boat.

Well, maybe its time we did.

Maybe its time we woke up.

Maybe its time we reclaimed our joy...our sex..our lives.

We have allowed this cloud to consume us of our own volition. We have alllowed the Robertsons and the Hannitys and the Dobsons and the Roves...and the Bushes....to command how we live our lifes. A place for everything and everything in its place. Well, its time we started saying...loudly....we will no longer comply!

From this point out, you will not control our bodies and who we offer it to. You will not control our orgasms. You will not control when we start fucking and when we stop....or with whom. You will not control how we pleasure ourselves and others, for as long as it is fully consentual with all parties, you have no right to interfere.

But we DO have the right to control how leads us. Will that person respect our right to be who we are, or will that person be bent on our destruction. If its the former, we will support you with our hearts, votes, and dollars. If you are not, it will be your downfall. It is now that simple.And its not a matter of whether you come...or cum...to a party I throw or someone else throws, but that you support the community. Find a sitter. Get a planner. Jump in with both feet. Get wet and get hard. And often.

I know few people listen to me, but it is important for me to say this...the bastards will not win unless we let them. It is time we start OUR offensive. Let our enemies drown awash in your juices, and let them know that love IS more powerful than hate, that passion is more powerful than war...that sex is the most powerful force in the world.

Friday, July 15, 2005

Hey boys and girls, remember when we found out that Democracy Now's Amy Good man was going to do an article in Hustler, and I speculated how long it would take for thre Erotopobes on the left to snack on her?It's feeding time......Meet Kirsten Anderberg, editor of The Loose Cannon and Eat The Press. Whatever they are:QUOTEAmy Goodman in Hustler July 2005: This is Indy Media???Amy GoodMAN, Spread Your Legs For Us!By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com) Amy GoodMAN is running an article in the July Hustler Magazine. And I call for Amy to spread her legs, herself, like the women she is exploiting for her profit. If Amy is willing to put her articles between women in degrading crotch shots, then it is time Amy herself, was subjugated in similar manner so she, herself, can be reduced to what every other woman in Hustler is reduced to, "pussy." I mean, come on, what are women besides "pussy?" Right? Right, Amy? Oh wait, Amy is the elite feminist who does not have to show her crotch in Hustler? I call Amy GoodMAN out right here and now, as an independent woman/feminist journalist. Amy, it is time you got in submissive poses with your crotch out for the public if you are planning on profiting from writing "indy media" inside Hustler. Otherwise you are a full-blown capitalist pimp. I cannot express my disgust at "feminists" trying to ally themselves with the porn industry as some sort of "sexual liberation." The porn industry has ZERO to do with sexual liberation for women, and is about the exploitation of women's bodies for profit, SOLELY. There is absolutely NOTHING comparable that men are subjected to publicly like porn on women in America. Shaven to look prepubescent, pumped up with plastic breasts, women are posed in ridiculous postures, starved to look thin enough to not be threatening, and I am sorry, but this is all about packaging women as meat in capitalist fashion for men. For a thousand plus year, women's feet were deformed by foot binding in China, and the men eroticized the hell out of these crippled women who could not walk on three inch soles. No different here in this century. If we keep women injected with big balloons of silicone on their chest, shaving every bit of their adult hair, and smeared with every kind of makeup imaginable, on diets, walking on stilted shoes, forever trying to become LESS, men LOVE it. It makes them feel in control. I have long said porn is not erotica. Porn is a system that is set up to institutionalize who women are here to serve. You will notice it is not MEN'S genitalia plastered all over the porn industry. Only gay male porn is centered on penis', mainstream porn is predominantly female exploitation. But as you will notice, whether it is gay porn for men, or mainstream women-exploit porn, it is still predominantly MEN who support and buy the stuff. The reason, in my opinion, is not that women do not like erotica or sex, but that there is little erotica made for women, rather than ABOUT women as the subjugated meat for men. Men have even asurped gay female porn to be about them! By men using women to women sex as male porn, it has made men think they can just INTERJECT themselves upon any lesbian couple, in their minds, at least. I noticed that when I was in a fem lesbian relationship, we were constantly hassled by gross men saying sexual things to us in public. When I hang with butch dykes, men shut up. Interesting, eh? The precious male genitalia must not be seen like women's genitals are. If men's genitals were paraded around as casually as Hustler and Playboy parade women's gentials and breasts, all these men would have huge body inferiority complexes like the women do. women and their breasts. Men would be getting silicon penis implants and would be worrying constantly about not measuring up. Men do not want to have to live like that, so they instead consume, produce and profit off of women's bodies. I saw a cable special on Hugh Heffner's "crib" not long ago. They showed all these rooms in his mansion filled with dyed blonde, big chested, thin, young women milling about with little dogs in their arms for companionship. When these women were asked what they DO, not a one said, "I am using this time living at the Heffner mansion to finish up my college education." They all were doing things like manicuring their nails, and working on their hair "for Hugh," who is the age of their grandfather. It makes me sick that people still glamorize this behavior. Remember the old children's rhyme "Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater, Had a wife and couldn't keep her, Put her in a pumpkin shell, and There he kept her very well?" That is what I see Hugh Heffner doing. Putting women in pumpkin shells so he can have access to them. I see women who want to profit off of porn trying to play porn off as completely harmless. Yet I hear the things they say about other feminists. These women and men in the porn industry actually use things like calling intelligent feminists who critique this mass exploitation of women "ugly" as their argument to shut us up! That is a third grade argument. We can't all hole up supported by Hugh in a pumpkin shell. Some of us actually DO things, besides our nails and hair! And looking "good" for men is low on our list of priorities. I mean, Amy GoodMAN surely is not looking like the women she has her article saddled between. What is up with that? Why doesn't Amy have to dye her hair and plaster HER face with makeup like the other women in Hustler? For that matter, have we seen the naked crotch of Hugh Heffner's daughter who now runs the empire supposedly? And why not? What makes some women think they have a right to make a profit from women doing things they, themselves, would never subjugate themselves to doing? I call out EVERY woman involved with the production and sales of Hustler and Playboy, whether it be Amy GoodMAN or Hugh Heffner's daughter, to SHOW YOUR CROTCH NAKED IN PUBLIC NOW LIKE THE WOMEN YOU EXPLOIT FOR PROFIT. If Amy GoodMAN is not willing to be subjugated in a like manner to the women around her in Hustler, then she needs to look at why she is writing in Hustler to begin with. http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pageamygoodman.htmlOh Kirst, Kirst....where do I begin...?Well...let start with Amy GoodMAN. MAN. Right off the bat we know how you feel about the male of the species. Is this the best you can do in terms of challenging Amy's aurguments or even the fact that the article appeared in Hustler?QUOTE. If Amy is willing to put her articles between women in degrading crotch shots, then it is time Amy herself, was subjugated in similar manner so she, herself, can be reduced to what every other woman in Hustler is reduced to, "pussy."I am not here to defend Larry Flynt, but if you take a pretty close look, I don;t see degraded women, I see women who are proud of thier sexuality and open about it...not degraded. Want degraded women?...check out "The Price is Right," where women of all shapes and sizes go nuts for a refrigerator given away by a walking cadaver (sorry Bob....it's time to retire).QUOTEI cannot express my disgust at "feminists" trying to ally themselves with the porn industry as some sort of "sexual liberation." The porn industry has ZERO to do with sexual liberation for women, and is about the exploitation of women's bodies for profit, SOLELY. There is absolutely NOTHING comparable that men are subjected to publicly like porn on women in America. Shaven to look prepubescent, pumped up with plastic breasts, women are posed in ridiculous postures, starved to look thin enough to not be threatening, and I am sorry, but this is all about packaging women as meat in capitalist fashion for men. For a thousand plus year, women's feet were deformed by foot binding in China, and the men eroticized the hell out of these crippled women who could not walk on three inch soles. No different here in this century. If we keep women injected with big balloons of silicone on their chest, shaving every bit of their adult hair, and smeared with every kind of makeup imaginable, on diets, walking on stilted shoes, forever trying to become LESS, men LOVE it. It makes them feel in control.Wrong, Kirst....it's the WOMEN who are in control, you idiot! BECAUSE women knwo what men supposedly want, women can wrap men around thier little fingers and get them to do anything they want. Or does the name "Lysistrata" mean anything to you?QUOTEYou will notice it is not MEN'S genitalia plastered all over the porn industry. Only gay male porn is centered on penis', mainstream porn is predominantly female exploitation.Again, I don;t know what porn she's been looking at...men;s genitalia are prominant in most porn....in fact, thank God for Larry that you can SEE a penis in his rags. You know there are many porno videos that do not show the man's face...but show the woman's face and body in all its glory. Maybe you should be asking about MALE degradation?QUOTEThe precious male genitalia must not be seen like women's genitals are. If men's genitals were paraded around as casually as Hustler and Playboy parade women's gentials and breasts, all these men would have huge body inferiority complexes like the women do. women and their breasts. Men would be getting silicon penis implants and would be worrying constantly about not measuring up. Men do not want to have to live like that, so they instead consume, produce and profit off of women's bodies.Now I KNOW this woman does not know what she is talking about. Thanks to porn, men are CONSTANTLY worried about whether thier whing-whang is 9 or 10 inches, or some impossible length and girth. Here in LA, penile implants are as common as breast implants? What planet are you on, Kirst? You never heard of the joke about how every man is 8 inches, no matter how small he is. This is taking me to places I do not want to go. Nor would you want me...so....QUOTEI see women who want to profit off of porn trying to play porn off as completely harmless. Yet I hear the things they say about other feminists. These women and men in the porn industry actually use things like calling intelligent feminists who critique this mass exploitation of women "ugly" as their argument to shut us up! That is a third grade argument. We can't all hole up supported by Hugh in a pumpkin shell. Some of us actually DO things, besides our nails and hair!Like what? Do you care for three kids, one of them mentally challenged, as well as a mom who is in the beginning stages of Alshiemers (sp?) as one adult actress I know is? Have you dedicated your life, or part of it, to making sure that adult actresses do not die of STD's like Sharon Mitchell? And even though it was more of a side show, Mary Carey in running for Governor showed more desire to actually effect change than you have being angry at anything with an X chromosome (and I know what some of you are going to say about Carey....which, when you think about it, is EXACTLY the point!).And in all of your screed you never once said anything about the CONTENT of Amy's article. WHat did she say? What points do you differ with? NO, you are pissed simply because her name is attached to an article in magzaine read by millions of WOMEN **AND** MEN. People who may not have had that much contact with progressive views anywhere else.And like you said, there are some who would easily take what you say and make disparaging remarks about your looks, of which I have no knowlege of, or your gender prefecernce, which I don't know of either. I will not go that route, for many of us who either work in adult, or enjoy its fruits, have a higher standard. But smearing uninformed invective with that broad brush, take takes TRUE ugliness, of which, Ms Anderberg, you posess copious amounts of.

Monday, June 13, 2005

As joe said, an to paraphrase AL Pacino in "....and Justice For All" (great flick, bi the way), the prosecution "forgot to bring a case.'

What they brought was a larcenous piece of trailer trash who thought she scam a few million out of Jackson. Herv erratic behovior on the stand did not help. Her spening spree on Jackos plastic helped less.

What I think mighht have happned, as sick as it sounds, was that she sent her kid in to seeif he could coax MJ into flagrante delicto. Whether MJ took the jailbait or not is not certain, but I think the mom does have some explaining to do...preferably in front of a judge.

One of the things that really turned my stomach was not the possiblity of Jackson's guilt...I could live with that. It was the Angry Mob truly wishing that Jackson would go crazy on a guilty verdict....jump out of a window or have the cops shoot him or something. As sick as Micheal could be, society is probably as sick.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

It all started with a memo printed in the Times of London. It was a memo that, in brief, said that the pretext for our invasion of Iraq....the presence of weapons of mass destruction or WMD's....was a bald face lie.

TIM ROBBINS: I think there should be more discussion about the Downing Street memo and less about “Newsweek.” I think that that story seemed to be buried. And there seems to be a lot of questions that the Downing Street memo raises.CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST OF "HARDBALL": Tell me about that.ROBBINS: Well, it suggests that the administration knew full well T. hey were being duplicitous and were operating with weak intelligence.MATTHEWS: Well, they—well, they did tell us at the time, Tim, that the best argument for getting the Europeans to join us in the war was using the WMD argument, but it wasn‘t their primary purpose. The primary purpose apparently was democratization in the Middle East, nation building.ROBBINS: And I think they didn‘t mention that until much later, Chris. I think that the original—original reason was that he was an imminent threat.And not that it has NOT been covered. The Christian Science Monitor offers an article that explores why the story has been a "dud" here in the USA: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.htmlNow the question is, if we sent thousands of America's Sons and Daughters to thier deaths and maiming on false pretenses, is that an impeachable offense by the President?Enter US Representaive John Conyers of Michigan.According to his bio, Conyers, Jr., a Detroit Democrat, was re-elected in November 2002 to his nineteenth term in the U. S. House of Representatives. Conyers has been spearheading an effort to get 100,000 signitures on a open letter to President Bush asking him to respond to particulars in that memo. So far, over 59,000 have visited the website, and many people have signed on to that letter. Including me.This is that letter:http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={BBD20340-D3E5-447E-9094-37D7458E305B}And these are the questions asked by Conyers in that letter:As a result of these concerns, we would ask that you respond to the following questions: 1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?Conyers and 89 other Congresspeople submitted those same questions to Bush last month. They have yet to recive an answer.In my opinion, attacking a country on knowlingly false charges is, if nothing else, and impeachable offense, bordering on treason. It is an immesnse misuse of Presidential powers, and the President must explain his actions or atone for his alleged crimes.The press will not cover it because, they will say, this does not matter to the average American. They have a point. They would rather stare endlessly at freakshows like "American I-Dull" than gain information about why thier childern are dying in the desert. No conspiracy here, just the media responding to the dumbth of the general audience.Well, THIS is why you should care, America. Look at the FACTS as opposed to Bush's ACTIONS:http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.htmlWhat can we do? According to the website set up by Conyers, http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/, plenty.Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 citizen signatures. http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={BBD20340-D3E5-447E-9094-37D7458E305B}Contact your representatives in Congress and urge them to join the 89 members who already have called on the President to explain the memo. http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdfAwaken the mainstream news media. More than a month after this document was published, the news media in the US has produced barely a trickle of reports on it (mostly coverage about the lack of coverage). Most of the news giants have ignored it entirely; some have belittled its significance while actually rebuffing citizens’ requests for serious news reporting. We are confident, however, that a campaign to inundate these journalists with earnest requests will succeed in focusing their attention (just as the Washington Post finally produced some reports after a recent deluge of letters).Thus our campaign: Every weekday in June, in cooperation with other activists and bloggers, we will publicize contact information for three distinct media outlets. We ask that you:• Write a brief letter requesting the journalists to report on the Downing Street Memo, stating succinctly why you believe the leaked document is significant for the US.• Send that letter as an email to each of the day’s three contacts.• Return the next day and contact the next three targets of our media campaign.We demand answers, Mr. President. We will wait for them. But not patiently.polybiOther sources:http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.htmlhttp://www.therandirhodesshow.com/http://www.mikemalloy.net/http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/index.php

Saturday, May 28, 2005

I think here, maybe somewhere else, I had a vision after The Planes went into The Buildings, I had a vision that they rebuild the twin towers just as they stood, except maybe a fw inces taller. And on opening day, no matter what the cost, I would fly to NYC, go to the New Towers, and...if security would let me..stand on the roof, elevate my middle finger in the general direction of, say, Tora Bora, and yell "YO! MOFO! IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO......YOU TWIT?!?!"I would be so happy.But I guess I was foolish. NYC had something like an Skyscraper Idol and chose some Big Glass Monstrosity called the Freedom Tower. It ws not as much a building, than a replica of the People's Choice Awards. All Al-Q would do is throw a rock and that would be that.Then, proveidence intveined. The project had to be scrapped. Safety concerns. Back to the drawing board.The someone who knew something about big bulidings chimed in. Donald Trump.

QUOTETycoon Trump offers to rebuild WTC towers New York - New York property tycoon Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled his design for "bigger, stronger and better" twin towers to replace the World Trade Centre originals that were destroyed on September 11, 2001.Denouncing the existing plans for rebuilding Ground Zero as "the worst pile of crap architecture I've ever seen", Trump argued that erecting two new, even taller twin towers was the only valid response to the terrorists.The consummate self-promoter, known as "The Donald", showed off his proposal just weeks after the official master design was put on hold because of security concerns surrounding the centrepiece, Freedom Tower.Describing the Freedom Tower as an "empty skeleton", Trump said its construction would be a capitulation."If we rebuild the World Trade Centre in the form of a skeleton, the terrorists win. It's that bad," he told reporters gathered in the lobby of his 5th Avenue Trump Towers headquarters on Manhattan.The design put forward by Trump and his structural engineer, Kenneth Gardner, essentially offers a modified version of the original twin towers, erected in the early 1970s.The replacements would be at least 1 475 feet tall, more than 100 feet higher than their previous incarnations. The new North Tower would also boast a 383-foot communications mast."It's bigger, it's stronger and it's better than the previous World Trade Centre, and it sets the right tone and the right attitude," Trump said, adding that some members of the public who had seen the model had been moved to tears.Charles Wolf, whose wife was killed in the North Tower, was more circumspect in his appraisal of the model."It spooked me when I first saw it... the idea of the towers rising again," Wolf said."I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's an interesting idea," he added.The Trump towers - he promised not to attach his name to the buildings - would employ a tube-within-a-tube design with improved fireproofing and larger stairwells.Gardner said the structures would be able to withstand the kind of attacks that brought down the original towers on September 11, 2001, killing 2 479 people. - Sapa-AFP http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=22&art_id=qw1116435601292B224Published on the Web by IOL on 2005-05-18 18:56:53

Then, something from another of like mind:

QUOTEMay 12, 2005 9:20 a.m. ET

Rebuild them!

(Keith Olbermann)SECAUCUS - They were just a few feet tall and not even as solidly constructed as the old architectural models my father would sometimes bring home from the office for me when I was a kid - but they affected me in a way I never would have imagined.The towers of The World Trade Center.They were in our studios yesterday, plastic recreations of the originals, dragged in by groups who are taking advantage of the security concerns about the planned ÂFreedom TowerÂ to push the simple idea that the best way to memorialize the victims and restore the community is to re-build the towers exactly as they stood until three and a half years ago.They're absolutely right - with one minor caveat. One of the towers should be exactly 229 feet, four inches shorter than the other. I'll explain why in a bit.FREE VIDEO Â Rebuilding WTCMay 13: The governor of New York plans on revising the design of the so-called "Freedom Tower" where the World Trade Center once stood. Is this the best way to memorialize the victims and restore the community?MSNBCBefore that, I have a confession to make. My first job in television was in the lobby of WTC #1 (as they used to call it; I never heard ÂNorth TowerÂ or ÂSouth TowerÂ until the day of the attacks). That's where CNN's New York bureau was located until 1984 - behind a two-story thick glass wall that, when we put the studio lights on, made us look like a very cheap high school science experiment.I hated the place. I mean, if you work in the city's tallest building and you're stuck in the lobby, you develop a mean streak about it. The place was comically understaffed (the first two years, we didn't have a receptionist - whoever was closest to the front door opened it, for staffers, visitors, and bag ladies alike). The commute - from almost anywhere else in the city - was wearying. The mall beneath the towers was a desert, and the neighborhood a wasteland (the dilapidated old West Side Highway still stood - kinda - out the doors to West Street, and the only amusements were those days when big hunks of it would crash to the roadway below). Worst of all, the air conditioning used to go out on an almost regular basis. You've never known heat until you've worked in a television studio without ventilation. Suits pressed while you wear them.As I hinted above, my father's an architect, so I had inherited the typical aesthetic condescension of his profession. What the heck was this Trade Center design supposed to be? The world's largest salute to Oblong, perhaps - with the faux-gothic grillwork on the outside tacked on in a fruitless attempt to class up the joint.I went in there to clean out my desk on the afternoon of Saturday, March 31, 1984. I would not return until September 11, 2001.Suddenly, of course, the sense of drudgery that only a disliked workplace can represent had been transformed into the terrible meaning we all now intuit. And that gaudy grillwork - the only remains standing - stuck out against the smoking pyre of the place with the starkness, and the sudden antiquity, of the Roman Colloseum. The feelings, I needn't tell you. 40 days as a street reporter in and around the scene of the catastrophe managed to reshape even my memories of the buildings I once dismissed as merely a great deal of weight sitting on top of the place I did my sportscasts.And as the searing pain of those first few weeks gradually gave way to sadness and thoughts of what, if anything, should be placed on this most hallowed ground, the only thing, the only thing that seemed to make sense, was the towers recreated, as originally designed, oblong boxiness and all - with that one minor caveat about the 229 feet and four inches. I wasn't among the voices insisting that only rebuilding it as it was would show we hadn't been ÂbeatenÂ - merely that all other forms of construction there would offend the sensibility, and diminish, not enhance, the remembrance.I hadn't thought much of it lately. The process of healing is a regretful one in a way. We're designed to forget - not forget the whole, but merely the sharp edges. I hadn't forgotten the Trade Center, nor my three years in it. Nor had I forgotten the fact that some creatures had managed to use two planes that each contained a friend of mine (Ace Bailey, the former hockey player and executive, was on one, and Tom Pecorelli, who had been one of the studio cameramen for my shows at Fox Sports, was on the other), to kill so many innocents in the buildings, including two college classmates of mine (Mike Tanner and Eamon McEneaney, who happened also to have been the quarterback and the receiver for Cornell University in the first sporting event I ever actually got paid to cover).Those things hadn't passed, and they won't. Nor will the simple reality that it all happened - a reality that will still of a morning unexpectedly punch me in the stomach, or make me wonder for a moment if something so horrible could've actually occurred, or if I must have imagined it in a consummate moment in a dream from an endless night.But I'd forgotten about the rightness of putting the Trade Center back where it stood. Forgotten it, until I saw that model yesterday, and it all came back to me.The ÂFreedom TowerÂ design wasn't somebody trying to be disrespectful; it was just the unavoidable project of an architectural trend in which everything must look like somebody just built it with a kid's erector set. The Hearst/Conde Nast building is just getting finished not far from my home, and it's that same style: Attach Beam A to Side Support B, Tap Support B with a pen to make sure it sounds as tinny as it looks.But it was wrong.The best way - the only way - to further soothe the pain is, as the proponents including Donald Trump are suggesting, to rebuild it as it was. Which brings me to my caveat.I'd use the original blueprints and design the ÂnewÂ Trade Center exactly as it had been. But I'd insist that one of the towers be exactly 229 feet, four inches shorter than the other. It's an uncomplicated gimmick to guarantee remembrance. Because, as long as these new towers would stand, someone unaware would ask, Âwhy is one of them shorter than the other?Â Whereupon an old-timer could explain, solemnly, that the difference between the heights of the towers is intentional - it's exactly 2,752 inches.One inch for each of the victims.It's all the memorial we really need.E-mail: KOlbermann@msnbc.com

So on this memorial day weekend, I say no better Memorial would represent the 3000 who died on that day of hell than a new set of Twin Towers.If the do, I'll reserve the airplane tickets.polybi

Friday, March 04, 2005

The Yellowing of AMerican journalism continues apace....spearheaded by a certain Walter WInchell wannabe who toils on Hills of Hollywood.

Drudge works like this. Screaming headline gives you images of what Drudgie wants you to think...scadal, murder...especially if it is a liberal involved.

Here's his latest example.

First, the sceaming headline:

Republican media adviser found dead at actress's home...

Now we go to the actual story, in the Moonie Times, also making you think there might me malice afoot.....but of you READ the story, you can see a tale of geniune sweetness, friendship, sorrow, and loss....

Thursday, March 03, 2005

I was about to blast Ann Coulter for her most recent blast and liberal talk host (and source of many of my more sordid recent fantasies) Randi Rhodes , but the her LATEST blast came around and I had to respond:

It is a response to the possibility that some gay conservatives might be outed, along the lines that a certain "journalist" from the probably-defunct Talon News was recently. Annie pleads the case thusly:

So now liberals are lashing out at the gays. Two weeks ago, The New York Timesturned over half of its of-ed page to outing gays with some connection toRepublicans. There is no principled or intellectual basis for these outings.Conservatives don't want gays to die; we just don't want to transform thePentagon into the Office of Gay Studies. By contrast, liberals say: "We love gaypeople! Gay people are awesome! Being gay is awesome! Gay marriage is awesome!Gay cartoon characters are awesome! And if you don't agree with us, we'll punishyou by telling everyone that you're gay!"

Well here is the point. If a person is promoting policies that are harmful to a certain group....and that person is a member of said certain group, one has to wonder what the motive is. Is it self hate? Or something more.

Annie goes on:

In addition to an attack on a Web site reporter for supposedly operating a gayescort service and thereby cutting into the business of the Village Voice,another Times op-ed article the same day gratuitously outed the children ofprominent conservatives. These are not public figures. No one knows who they areapart from their famous parents. I didn't even know most of these conservativeshad children until the Times outed them. Liberals can't even cite their usual"hypocrisy" fig leaf to justify the public outings of conservatives' familymembers. No outsider can know what goes on inside a family, but according to thepublic version of one family matter being leered over by liberals, a prominentconservative threw his daughter out of the house when he found out she was gay.

First, I am surprised that Coulter was not one of the people railing against the afore mentioned Talon News guy. The ease in which he received press credentials in this age of security is mind boggling. I mean the President is now, officially, and Al-Q target, you know? It was just the irony of the fact the this guy was propping up an administration that has been known as very anti-anything not male heterosexual.

As for Maya Marcel-Keyes, her tussles with her dad have been know longer than the post in the news. I do wish her luck.

But it got me to thinking......what about you Ann? You're saying a lot of stuff about gays, but we don't know what your life is, really.

I did a Google of you, Annie...I added "marriage," "boyfriend," "husband," "divorce." I did come up with two dinners you had with actor Ron Silver. But Ron poo-pooed the notion that the two of you were an item. But most interesting was that you said, jokingly, the "Matt Drudge is the only man for me."

And most of is believe what side of street Matt roams...

Look, Ann. I'll be flat honest. It's alright to be both conservative AND gay. Tammy Bruce is. So is Al Rantel. Not to mention all those Log Cabin Conservatives.

Let's face it Annie....you ARE 42, and unmarried......and you know what people say about THAT situation!

So c'mon, Ann, there are advantages to admitting it. You can say I know where you are coming from with credibility. Also, you can justify those dreamy thoughts of Luara Ingraham you've been having. And maybe you can finally keep that wolf, Bill Maher at bay (or encourage him...I dunno).

Ann, I think you owe it to your fans, yourself, to AMERICA! Come out, Come out, whatever you are.